It was about slavery

[ironfoot]

Since I started this thread it has expanded to 4 pages, yet it seems few of the posters have read the article from the link in this first post:
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html
 
It was about slavery, not states rights, not tarriffs.

[Graybeard]

NO it wasn't.

[ironfoot]

Yeah, it was.
 
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
 
South Carolina, the first state to secede, stating it was seceding because of the election of an anti slavery northerner as President:
"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."
 

[BUGEYE]

the confederate VEEP certainly believed it.

[williamlayton]

This thing was boiling down to an us vs them thing since the was of 1812. There were a lot of things that were issues.
Mainly it was SC vs anything or anybody that defied SC thought. SC wanted to control the thoght of the nation, when it  could not that is when they said i will take my ball and go home.
Maine had done this years earlier when it did not join the UNION--but came to terms later.
Now the South tried, God bless 'em, but it was an illogical stand.
The South failed to realize that the UNION was full of folks who did not agree with them.
Then it became a badge of honor to rebel.
Sam Houston told the folks of Texas he would not sign any paper that demanded loyalty to anyone but the Union. He also told them they were fixing to get their butt handed to theirownselves on a silver platter.
Now to be honest in the whole of this discussion---the South lost the war but won the battle of reconstruction.
This war raged for over a 100 years--the South demanding that they were superior to all. They brought about socialism in America.
Blessings

[Graybeard]

Just because you believe the revisionist history written by the winning side don't make it so. I doubt that 10% of he southern soldiers owned slaves or cared one way or another if the rich folks would be able to.

I'm constantly amazed at the stupidity of folks who believe whatever revisionist history they read without doing any rational and logical thinking on the matter.

[subdjoe]

The War, per Lincolns own words, was about tariffs.  In his first inaugural he stated that the only reason he would invade the republics that had left the Union was to collect the tariffs and duties from the customs houses. No mention one way or the other about slavery.

No, I take that back, he said that he supported the Perpetual Slavery (Corwin) amendment that had passed in Congress in early March, 1861.  Without a single vote from the seven states of the deep south.  If, indeed, slavery were the only reason, as Iron asserts, then all they had to do to insure continuation of slavery was rescind their bills of secession and ratify that amendment. 

Georgia laid out, in its Declaration of Secession, as partial reason:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

Did slavery play a part in secession?  Yes.  I don't think anyone of reason would deny that slavery played A part.  But it was far from the ONLY reason for SECESSION.  But the War itself was more about tariffs that the federal government needed to continue to improve northern infrastructure and prop up northern industry.  Including keeping harbors open for northern slave ships to sail from.

[williamlayton]

With most Germans in WWII there was not a lot of hatered of Jews.
In the South, those in control whipped up the majority of folks to fight--SC certainly did have a very keen interest in slavery and this was their main concern.
It did not help when most everybody white had the impression that the Blacks did not measure up in mentality---especially the poor whites---they had to have someone that they were better than.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

OK, Willy goes back on ignore.   When he starts saying that the Confederacy was just like Nazi Germany.....

[williamlayton]

To those that read and listen--it was a parallel.
The results were the same however.
Blessings

[rio grande]

Well, if it was about slavery why did the 'Emancipation Proclamation' free only the slaves in the South?

"...the Emancipation Proclamation declared that on January 1," all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." Effects of the Emancipation Proclamation
The effect of the Emancipation Proclamation was to free only slaves in states still in rebellion. Slaves in states that had not seceded or that had been brought under Union control (Tennessee and parts of Louisiana and Virginia) were not affected. The move was politically risky for Lincoln, who knew he might lose the 1864 election by alienating Northern Democrats who wanted to save the Union but did not necessarily support abolition."
http://afroamhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/emancipation.htm

Lincoln was a conniving, calculating, opportunistic politician.
He said what he needed to say when it served his purposes. His statements are full of contradictions.
Here is a quote from 'The Great Emancipator'  you don't read often.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

http://www.absolutefacts.com/history/abraham-lincoln/lincoln-quotes-slavery.htm

[BUGEYE]

I think that if SC hadn't been so quick on the trigger, there may have been a peaceable solution.
I don't see Davis or Lee wanting war.

[subdjoe]

I think that if SC hadn't been so quick on the trigger, there may have been a peaceable solution.
I don't see Davis or Lee wanting war.

Or if Lincoln had not been so quick to try to reinforce Sumter in preparation to invading the deep south, but had taken advantage of the free passage offered to withdraw his troops from SC soil.  Heck, he had been willing to even meet with delegates from the seceded Republics.  But he turned his back on any diplomatic solution.   

[BUGEYE]

well, we've discussed the re-supply before.  the supply ship was unarmed and lincoln told that it was coming.  there was troops there from another fort and they needed groceries.  but there was definitly not enough troops to invade anyone.  SC was too quick on the trigger.

[subdjoe]

well, we've discussed the re-supply before.  the supply ship was unarmed and lincoln told that it was coming.  there was troops there from another fort and they needed groceries.  but there was definitly not enough troops to invade anyone.  SC was too quick on the trigger.

True, the actual supply ship was unarmed.  But the squadron behind it for support was not.

And I did not say that the troops landed to reinforce would be the invading troops.  I said he was reinforcing in preparation for the invasion.  Putting more troops into Ft. Sumter would allow more of the guns to be manned.  Or don't you think that a well armed, fully manned federal fort in the harbor throat would have any use in supporting a federal invasion fleet?

[ironfoot]

Just because you believe the revisionist history written by the winning side don't make it so. I doubt that 10% of he southern soldiers owned slaves or cared one way or another if the rich folks would be able to.

I'm constantly amazed at the stupidity of folks who believe whatever revisionist history they read without doing any rational and logical thinking on the matter.

\
Hi Greybeard
I am also suspect about revisionist history, but disagree with you about which version is the revisionist one.
I don't think that the winner wrote the history, if that was the case, then how can the argument that it was about slavery be revisionist?
This wasn't a war where the losers lost their right to fee speech.
Southerners seceded over slavery, but after losing tried to claim the motivation was something more noble.
Although most southerners may not have owned slaves, they did not want the slave dependent financial and social order overturned.
If it wasn't about slavery, why did South Carolina say it was about slavery?
Ironfoot

[Graybeard]

You really should either study up on the subject or stick to subjects you are knowledgeable of. You clearly are not familiar with that period of history.

[williamlayton]

I am familiar with it.
The South fought reconstruction (and won for a 100 years). Just as soon as they got back on their feet they started writing this apology and acting as though the war was not over on this subject.
Bill, just like you, I have seen and experienced this humiliation that the nation thrust upon this class of folks.
It may not have been about slavery but the slavery cast upon these people was just as great.
Now you can call me a liberal if you want. I just watched it unfold with wonderment.
Blessings 

[eastbank]

even after the war,the south still treated negro,s as not  equal to their poor white trash, it took one of the south,s good democrats (LBJ) to make it right. and still there are places in the south a negro doesn,t want to be caught after dark. before the war the negro was good enough to  work,feed,raise and have babies by their white masters, after the war they could not eat,go to school,ride in the front of the bus or swin in the same pools as whites. if the war was not about slavery,why all the hatred of negro,s, after all they didn,t start the war. eastbank.

[AtlLaw]

and still there are places in the south a negro doesn,t want to be caught after dark.

I can tell you ain't from around here!   
 
I can tell you what be da trooff, I can't think of anywhere in metro Atlanta where a black person would be in danger, day or night!  But I can show you MANY places in Atlanta where you don't want to be white at night!      Cummon down white boy, I'll show ya!   
 
I can also tell you that in my travels throughout Georgia I haven't noticed what you state to be the fact.

[BUGEYE]

even after the war,the south still treated negro,s as not  equal to their poor white trash, it took one of the south,s good democrats (LBJ) to make it right. and still there are places in the south a negro doesn,t want to be caught after dark. before the war the negro was good enough to  work,feed,raise and have babies by their white masters, after the war they could not eat,go to school,ride in the front of the bus or swin in the same pools as whites. if the war was not about slavery,why all the hatred of negro,s, after all they didn,t start the war. eastbank.

I have to disagree about LBJ.  his war on poverty only caused a larger welfare state and they're still in poverty.  a republican, Eisenhower, gave blacks the opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty with education etc.  however, many blacks still prefer LBJs handouts.

[eastbank]

i,ve dun been down there, in the early 60,s and saw the way youall treated the negro,s then. and the polical system still tries to keep not only negro,s down but other minoritys as well. get them on relief and get them dependent on it for several generations and wallaw a new kind of slavery. money is freedom,keep them poor and you still controll them. and their are many cities you and i should not be walking after dark, but crime is crime and black on black crime is at a higher rate than black on white or white on black. and thats because getto,s are mostly all black(remember keep them dependent on the system and you controll them.). one thing for sure with out the slaves,cotton would not have been king. eastbank.

[Graybeard]

I love the way folks ASS-U-ME so much knowledge of the south having never been here or only once 40 or more years ago. Like you Richard I know of no such as he states and have lived in the south my whole life.

Big city, any southern state a white boy best be careful of where he finds himself especially at night but even in the daytime in lots of places. Blacks I'm not aware of anywhere they'd be in danger these days.

When I was growing up in Bama before the civil wrongs movement by the trouble making yankee blacks things were separate but otherwise fairly equal. We got along fine. No we didn't attend the same schools but now that they do all that has happened is the quality of education for all has suffered.

Heck I recall black boys coming up to the local elementary school and playing ball with us white boys and no one thought anything of it.

Then the northern blacks stirred up the crap and the divide widened and likely will never return to the way it was when I was growing up.

[Casull]

get them on relief and get them dependent on it for several generations and wallaw a new kind of slavery.

 
 
Damn, that's the playbook of the DNC.  Has been for decades now.  I don't know what you saw 50 years ago when you visited the south, but it sure ain't that way now.  I've been in Virginia now about 1 1/2 years and one of the things that impressed me was just how well the races get along here.  People are genuinely friendlier here than the north.  They are also more polite.  I lived in the suburbs of Chicago for 25 years and northern Illinois for another 18 years after that.  Racism was much, much worse there (going both ways).  In fact, I believe it was Martin Luther King who said, after visiting Chicago, that it was the most segregated and racist place he had ever been.

[eastbank]

i have never seen  white and colored water fountins at a court house in the north,i did see that in hattiesburg miss.,i never saw beaches posted no blacks in the north,but i did in gulfport miss. along with whites only bars,resturants and barber shops in gainsville ala. and i lived down there three years not three weeks. and i,m sure it has changed in the last 46 years and if you don,t like it blame LBJ,he was your darling boy from texas that kennedy needed to carry the southern democrates on his ride to the whitehouse, to bad JFK got killed or it still may be the way you liked it. but i,m sure the colored people didn,t think it was good times for them. the south as you knew it and that i saw is gone forever,for better or worse. eastbank.

[gstewart44]

i have never seen  white and colored water fountins at a court house in the north,i did see that in hattiesburg miss.,i never saw beaches posted no blacks in the north,but i did in gulfport miss. along with whites only bars,resturants and barber shops in gainsville ala. and i lived down there three years not three weeks. and i,m sure it has changed in the last 46 years and if you don,t like it blame LBJ,he was your darling boy from texas that kennedy needed to carry the southern democrates on his ride to the whitehouse, to bad JFK got killed or it still may be the way you liked it. but i,m sure the colored people didn,t think it was good times for them. the south as you knew it and that i saw is gone forever,for better or worse. eastbank.

Good lord man,  you lived in the South for 3 years almost a half century ago and you want to cast aspersions upon the South today?      You need to come out of your time capsule and realize it is almost 2012!    My 'speriences have been as AtlLaw and GB have described from urban and rural N Carolina,  Jawja, and Flawda.   I do remember the whites only/colored only signs in the NC cities I would visit as a kid, but in case you haven't noticed,  dem days be gone.     Come on down South and stay another 3 years.    It's very different now.   

[Graybeard]

Don't encourage him, folks like him are best when sumwhere other than heah.

[williamlayton]

I remember an incident in Vidor Texas just a few years ago that should end this arguement.
I still sit in conversations with people who use the "N" word as it has been used for 150 years.
I don't know a lot about Alabama but I think that you are hiding your head in the sand.
What causes all this hatred between Blacks and whites? Did the whites start it? Did the whites push it the point of a boil that burst and then wonder why they get a lot of puss on them.
Bill, I don't know where you were actually raised but I never witnessed the seperate but equal that you witnessed.
In Houston, Texas there are still small communities that blacks will not stop in after dark.
Into the 90's Pasadena Texas was one such town.
Blessings

[eastbank]

if you read my posts,i did not say it was like that now. but what you posted was you liked the way it was before LBJ, i would like to hear from a few negro,s and what they thought about the conditions they were forced to live with,not just playing ball on a all white field. at a matter of fact the south had to be forced to obey the  civil rights act and it took a while to get it enforced. with the army sent there. i,m sure you remember george wallace and his stand on intergration. i,m not pro negro,pro white,pro red or pro yellow. but i am pro human being and pro american. as far as don,t encourge him,if i want to travel in the south i will. the whole county is america and any one is intitled to go any where they please, no matter what you would like or think. eastbank.

[BUGEYE]

eastbank, I grew up in Ill. with segregated schools, movies and water fountains.
when blacks came in a restuarant, they stood at the cash register and got something to "go"
it WAS that way everywhere.